Ordered,
	That Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. John Randall be added to the Committee—[Mr. Roy.]

Adam Ingram: I am pleased to have been able to secure the opportunity to make an oral statement to the House today in place of the written statement that I had tabled.
	As the House knows, the Government are committed to the transformation of defence logistics support as an essential part of the ongoing and extensive programme of modernisation of the armed forces. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement to that effect to the House on 21 July. We believe that logistics transformation is a critical part of providing more effective support to our armed forces while releasing resources for the front line and making the best use of taxpayers' money. The National Audit Office recognises that the Ministry of Defence's logistics transformation programme will deliver about £2 billion of efficiency savings to the Ministry by 2010–11.
	Our objective is to deliver more adaptable, efficient and effective support structures—forces that are better configured to enable our expeditionary operations. Let me make it plain to all hon. Members that every penny that we refuse to release by not implementing our modernisation programme is a penny less that is available to provide our forces with the life-saving support they need. Let me also make it plain that I know how much our employees have contributed to providing that support over the years and how proud they are of the role that they have played. Nevertheless, we have to accept that we must adapt to the changing strategic environment, and that means having more adaptable, efficient and effective support structures, which are better configured to enable our armed forces to conduct expeditionary operations.
	We support those forces with two businesses that provide depth support in the air and land environments. They are DARA—the Defence Aviation Repair Agency— and ABRO—the Army Base Repair Organisation—which provides depth repair for the land and armoured vehicle fleet. DARA and ABRO were established as trading funds in 2001 and 2002 respectively, thereby recognising their need to operate on a largely commercial basis at arm's length from the Ministry of Defence. In common with all parts of logistics support, DARA and ABRO are significantly affected by the modernisation programme. It has already led to a number of significant savings, including a planned reduction of more than 2,000 RAF personnel by 2007–08. After careful analysis by my Department, it was determined that there was no strategic need to retain in MOD ownership the capabilities that those trading funds provide. I announced that to the House, in respect of DARA, in December 2004. Instead, judgments on their future must be based on the best balance of value, cost and risk, compared with the alternatives.
	In the case of DARA, on 25 November last year I announced in a written statement to the House the introduction of new depth repair arrangements for the Tornado aircraft, in addition to those made earlier for the Harrier. Under those arrangements, maintenance and repair is being consolidated at two RAF main operating bases. Previously, there had been four levels of support for aircraft, stretching from industry to the front line. These are being reconfigured to just two—depth support and deployable forward support—concentrated at the most cost-effective location.
	Those arrangements are proving successful and have already increased operational effectiveness by reducing the number of aircraft in maintenance. In the Harrier fleet, for example, the number of aircraft in maintenance and upgrade at any one time will reduce from a planned 24 to an average of 13, freeing 11 additional aircraft to the front line at any one time. Similar benefits are expected once the Tornado future support arrangements are fully implemented.
	Those improvements, together with the implementation of complementary and innovative changes to the way in which logistic support is provided, will significantly enhance our ability to deliver required front-line readiness, and will do so at much lower cost. Consolidating support for fast jets and helicopters will deliver net savings of some £70 million over the next four years, with recurring annual savings of £40 million thereafter.
	I come now to the future of DARA's five business units: St. Athan in south Wales; Almondbank in Perth, Scotland; Sealand in north Wales; and the two units at Fleetlands in Hampshire. I shall deal first with DARA's fixed-wing business at St. Athan. Fast-jet workload has reduced for a number of reasons. We have announced the withdrawal of the Jaguar fleet. We have also reduced the number of operational Tornado F3 squadrons, resulting in a reduction in the required Tornado operational fleet of 17 aircraft. We have increased the interval between major servicing for the Tornado F3 and GR4 fleets and, as part of our end-to-end review of air logistic support, migrated maintenance of Harrier and Tornado GR4 aircraft to the RAF's main operating bases at Cottesmore and Marham.
	DARA has been unable to secure commercial aviation repair business in a market that faces overcapacity and is fiercely competitive. My judgment, therefore, is that, regrettably, the fast-jet business at St. Athan does not have a long-term future, so I am announcing, subject to consultation, that it should close by April 2007 with the loss of up to 500 jobs, primarily in south Wales. However, the same end-to-end review has resulted in more VC10 work transferring to DARA's large aircraft business, helping it to remain a viable and sustainable business and to secure about 350 jobs at the St. Athan site. I am therefore announcing, again subject to consultation, that this VC10 business should be taken to the market now, to test whether sale might deliver improved effectiveness and value for money for our armed forces and a better long-term future for the work force.
	The Department's investment in the Red Dragon project has enabled DARA and the MOD to achieve major reductions in operating costs, and it has enabled significant site rationalisation at St. Athan. We anticipate that we should have recovered our investment at St. Athan by April 2007. By investing in that facility, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly, we have provided south Wales with a state-of-the-art engineering capability that can form the centrepiece of the proposed St. Athan aerospace park. I therefore make no apology for taking the bold decision to build this world-class facility—a decision that was taken in good faith, based on the best available information at the time. Not to have done so would have immediately rendered DARA uncompetitive. We are continuing to examine, with the Welsh Assembly, a number of military and civil aerospace opportunities for the future use of the facility.
	The next area concerns DARA's helicopter repair and associated component businesses at Fleetlands in Hampshire and at Almondbank in Scotland. Those businesses continue to offer a cost-effective repair capability. The facilities will continue to employ in the region of 860 people: more than 580 at Fleetlands and more than 270 in Almondbank. Again, I am announcing, subject to consultation, that those two parts of DARA should be taken to the market now to test whether sale might deliver improved effectiveness and value for money for our armed forces and, again, a better long-term future for the work force.
	I come now to DARA's engine maintenance business at Fleetlands in Hampshire. Regrettably, this business has become uncompetitive and is unable to sustain its market share. This has followed DARA's recent loss to Rolls-Royce, in open competition, of work on the RB199 engines for the Tornado aircraft. Also, DARA did not secure the Gnome and Gem helicopter engine repair contracts. That work will now be carried out by Rolls-Royce. I have therefore decided, subject to consultation, that this business should close by April 2007, with the loss of 225 jobs in Hampshire.
	The final business unit in DARA is the electronics business, based in Sealand, north Wales, which employs some 600 people. This will be retained within MOD ownership. That business provides critical support to our current aircraft and has scope for further growth as we optimise the Department's future avionics support arrangements.
	I want to deal with ABRO's future. ABRO provides depth repair of much for the Army's fleet of armoured fighting vehicles, as well as other military vehicles and fighting equipment. Change at ABRO is essential for a number of reasons. First, the Defence Logistics Organisation is introducing a series of reforms to improve the efficiency with which the fleet is being managed and maintained. That reduces the requirement for deep repair. Secondly, ABRO has become more efficient, reducing the required manpower. For example, the cost of base overhaul of the Warrior armoured vehicle has been reduced by 15 per cent. and the time taken cut by half, from 107 days to 53. As a result, it has been possible to release 40 more vehicles back to front-line commands.
	Thirdly, the reality is that while ABRO has some unique capabilities, it is facing increasingly direct competition as a result of new and more efficient DLO contracting strategies. While there is no long-term strategic need to retain ABRO within MOD ownership, I judge that we will not be ready to expose all or parts of the business for sale for a number of years. However, the business needs to become significantly more efficient and some of the MOD's long-term support strategies need to mature. The consequence is that significant rationalisation is necessary so that ABRO can become more competitive.
	Subject to consultation, I am announcing that ABRO's armoured vehicle and engine facilities, together with its one-stop shop for unscheduled repairs at Donnington in Shropshire, will close by March 2007, with up to 628 redundancies. Instead, depth maintenance and repair of the armoured fleet will be concentrated at Bovington in Dorset, retaining some 384 jobs, although up to 107 will be lost by 2010. ABRO's one-stop shops at Warminster in Wiltshire and Colchester in Essex will close by March 2007, with up to 281 redundancies. There will be up to a further 210 redundancies across other ABRO sites, including the head office function based in Andover in Hampshire.
	In addition, and to provide more efficient and effective service, ABRO will create a number of new smaller facilities closer to the Army front-line customer, including in the Warminster and Colchester areas. Up to 165 new posts will be created. Having rationalised its core defence business, ABRO will be looking to develop profitable commercial revenue across the defence sector and beyond into other markets. There are no guarantees of success, and of course we must ensure that the taxpayers' position is protected, but if it can become much more competitive, ABRO could have the potential to grow into new markets. It has already had some success in the rail maintenance and public sector fleet management markets.
	I pay tribute to the excellent service that the employees of DARA and ABRO have provided to our armed forces. The redundancies across both DARA and ABRO will have an impact on individuals and their families. I am particularly mindful of the impact of this announcement on south Wales, Donnington in Shropshire, and Hampshire.
	We are working with the Welsh Assembly in Wales, and we will of course engage with the other regional bodies to mitigate the consequences of these necessary decisions and to provide appropriate outplacement services to help those affected. As a good example of that, we have already been able, through joint working with the Welsh Assembly, to attract ATC Lasham, a civil commercial aircraft maintenance and repair company, to St. Athan, creating up to 300 new jobs. We will help those affected by these announcements to find alternative employment and we will make every effort to use natural labour turnover, redeployment and voluntary redundancy to mitigate the loss. However, while we will seek to keep them to a minimum, a significant number of compulsory redundancies can be expected.
	We are committed to modernising our armed forces. To do so, we must continually look for more efficient support solutions to enable us to invest more resource to support our men and women in the front line. These changes are an essential part of that strategy.

Gerald Howarth: I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of what has been an extremely lengthy statement, and for his courtesy in affording me more than the conventional amount of time to consider it.
	I doubt whether I am alone in experiencing a shudder every time this Government announce a plan to modernise. If it relates to our institutions, it generally means to destroy. In the case of our national defence, it usually heralds a cut. Sadly, today's announcement appears to be no exception.
	I feel particularly sorry for the DARA operation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). The Government built up hopes of creating a substantial aviation repair facility to provide a valuable skills base in south Wales, only to dash them again. Just months after agreeing a £70 million investment in the Red Dragon site, a new chief executive, Archie Hughes, was brought in to undertake the challenging task of preparing the business for sale. No sooner had he arrived than Ministers promptly announced the removal of Tornado GR4 work to RAF Marham, cutting the ground from beneath him and his team. That followed the transfer of Harrier work to RAF Cottesmore early last year, at a cost to DARA St. Athan of 550 jobs. Removing business from a company is not a sensible way to sell it as a going concern.
	The indecision over DARA has led to what can only be described as a shambolic state of affairs, and great uncertainty for a work force to whom the Minister has rightly paid tribute—some reward they have had for their commitment. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister in respect of DARA.
	First, what was the result of the market testing carried out by Morgan Stanley earlier this year? Is it true that there has been no serious expression of interest in a purchase? Secondly, can he tell us how the front-line servicing operation for Harriers at RAF Cottesmore is performing? Is it true that, as Amicus claims, the cost of transferring work from DARA St. Athan to Cottesmore was substantial?
	The Minister says that he intends to remove all fast-jet work from St. Athan, but what about the Hawk contract currently placed there, which he did not mention? He said that the VC10 business has been transferred there, but that he is planning to market-test that, too—I presume that he is going to sell it, so what will be left of St. Athan if that goes? He said that DARA had been unable to secure commercial aviation repair business following the rundown of military work, so what is his plan for the future of the facility? I dare say that his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan will put that question to him even more vigorously.
	Again, the Minister said that he was planning to sell the helicopter repair business at DARA Fleetlands, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers). If that goes, what will be left there? Can he explain why, uniquely, DARA's electronics business at Sealand will not be market-tested, when that is apparently being done with everything else?
	As for ABRO, that organisation has been subject to a steady process of attrition. In July, the Ministry of Defence announced the loss of 250 jobs across the country, with today's phase 2leading to a further 1,061 net redundancies. The NAO's major repair and overhaul report of 2002—I acknowledge that it is from three years ago, but I would welcome the Minister's response—stated:
	"Despite trends towards contractor logistics support, however, parts of industry acknowledge that they do not have well developed repair and overhaul capabilities. Some manufacturers are therefore looking to ABRO to provide this expertise and capability. In addition, Alvis Vehicles Limited and Vickers Defence Systems both entered into partnering arrangements with ABRO in 2001. And ABRO intends to work more closely with other potential industrial partners on future equipment programmes."
	Can the Minister tell us whether the deficiency identified by the NAO has been resolved?
	Will the Minister explain why he now sees no further need for deep repair for military land vehicles? It seems that the closure of the one-stop shops at Warminster and Colchester will take out a whole capability. He referred to smaller units being placed there, but what will they do that is not currently carried out by the existing one-stop shops? Although we welcome any moves genuinely designed to make the logistics back-up for our armed forces more efficient, we shall resist measures that have the effect of so cutting our logistics capability that they starve the front line of vital support, or which eliminate scope for spare capacity that may be required during conflict. It is against that yardstick that we shall judge today's announcement.
	Our front-line forces are at full stretch and they need to have confidence that the essential back-up is actually there. My initial fear is that the announcement today represents a substantial cut in capability, which far from reinforcing the front line will only serve to weaken it.

Adam Ingram: That shows that one should not give out a statement too far in advance. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own statements in the run-up to the last election—statements on which the Conservatives campaigned. Does he remember the James report? It contained £1.6 billion in addition to the £2.8 billion we have announced, taking £4.4 billion out of defence logistics support. It contained a sell-off of ABRO and DARA. It did not propose to test the market, but contained a simple commitment to sell it off, along with the Warship Support Agency and everything else to do with defence agencies. I can take some criticism—I am sure I will get it—but not from the Conservative party.
	In terms of DARA St. Athan, I set out why the business has contracted: because of platforms being taken out of service—that was going to happen anyway; they were just brought out of service earlier—and because increased periods between maintenance reduces the number of aircraft going downstream. It is also a result of the transfer of the Harrier and the Tornado to RAF main operating bases. That means that the totality of the workflow had ceased to exist, by and large. Of course, the work could have remained there, but it would have done so at cost greater than that which I set out in my statement.
	I indicated that the savings made as a result of the Harrier transfer were substantial and they will be replicated for the Tornado. If the view is that the RAF main operating bases cannot maintain those aircraft, it is a significant charge—effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the technicians cannot maintain aircraft to the same standards and ability as those within DARA.
	The purpose of market testing is to find out if there is an expression of interest. If there is, we will have to see if it satisfies us in terms of cost and guaranteed support for the future, with the element of risk contained within that. There is no guarantee that market testing will necessarily lead to the sale of VC10 business, although I must say that I am under some pressure to do that. Whoever buys it could, effectively, grow the capacity of the engineering aerospace work that is carried out at St. Athan, because the large manufacture capability could bring in other work using the facilities built there.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about Fleetlands and the decision to take that to the market; again, it is proving to be effective. It is right that we test the market on helicopter support, using the same criteria for the fast-jet business and for the rest of the fixed-wing business. In one sense, that is not too dissimilar to what the hon. Gentleman was campaigning for before the election, although he was not going to market; he was going to sell to the first bidder. We will market-test to see if there is a bidder and then get value from that.
	Sealand is being retained within the MOD for a good reason—it does very important work at present. With the Typhoon coming along, we believe that it is important that capacity be retained at Sealand. We are looking into whether we can invest to give the work force a better future, either in the public sector or in an area where market testing may be necessary.
	As was said three years ago, the market has changed and ABRO is under intense competitive pressures. The way in which it is structured has made it inefficient, so we are rationalising. The depth support that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is going to Bovington, while other work will be distributed across other sites. As I said in my statement, there will be 185 additional posts. The aim is to get closer to the customer and closer to front-line need.What we are taking from ABRO is excess capacity, not capability. The situation had to be assessed properly before we acted, and we will still have a 40 per cent. surge capability to meet any of the demands to which the hon. Gentleman rightly alluded.

David Kidney: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to prevent or stop a person in charge of a child who is otherwise permitted to be in a public place or licensed premises from feeding milk to that child in that place or on those premises; to make provision in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill proposes to address some deep weaknesses in our society's attitude to breastfeeding. Those weaknesses are shown in England and Wales in a lower rate of mothers starting to breastfeed and a higher rate of mothers giving up breastfeeding than in countries of a comparable size and wealth to ours. The Bill would broaden the role of the Department of Health in supporting families in the decisions that they make about breastfeeding. It would also stop a form of discrimination that deters parents from feeding their young children in public places.
	The promotion of breastfeeding is necessary. Breast milk is best. Research findings are piling up showing that milk is the ideal first food for most babies, providing complete nutrition to meet the unique requirements of infants. That research tells us that breast milk leads to fewer infections in babies—for example, gastro-intestinal tract infections—leads to healthy hearts in the long term, improves cognitive development, brings lower risks of allergies from environmental factors, offers protection against insulin-dependent diabetes, and potentially brings improved bone development. Breastfeeding is also good for the health of mums. Women who breastfeed may benefit from a reduced risk of pre-menopausal ovarian and breast cancer, greater weight loss if they breastfeed for at least six months, and a reduced risk of osteoporosis in later life.
	Because of the certainty of those benefits, the World Health Organisation and our own Department of Health recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives. Yet despite that recommendation, in England and Wales about one third of mothers do not breastfeed from the outset, and by four months of age only about a quarter of babies are still receiving breast milk. It is true that breastfeeding is not possible for a small number of mothers, but for most who do not start or give up too soon there are practical and cultural obstacles that we should sweep away.
	The Scandinavian countries top the league table of breastfeeding. In Norway, 97 per cent. of new mothers start to breastfeed, with 80 per cent. still doing so at six months. The compelling health benefits mean that we should try harder in this country to match those more successful societies. The Bill would require the Department of Health to make arrangements to support and encourage families to ensure greater rates of breastfeeding in our country. The Government are committed to the promotion of breastfeeding—they already fund projects on best breastfeeding practice—but all parents of newborn babies should have access to education, supervision and support. I know from my contacts that many midwives, health visitors, National Childbirth Trust and La Leche League breastfeeding counsellors and others want to help to deliver a more comprehensive support service for all parents, especially mothers wishing to breastfeed. The Government can do more. For example, the NCT calls for a breastfeeding action plan covering training, baby-friendly facilities and peer support.
	It is also important to involve employers. It is clear from the work that I have done in my constituency that many employers need help to understand the needs of employees who come back to work after maternity leave and still wish to breastfeed.
	The Bill is partly about the health benefits of breastfeeding and ensuring that parents know about those benefits and have support in taking them up, but it is also intended to stamp out discrimination against parents. They want to live normal lives after the birth of their children but can be deterred from venturing out to places where other members of the public have no problem in going because they find a prejudice against feeding babies there. I have heard parents complain about a lack of family-friendly places to feed babies, whether it is breastfeeding or bottle-feeding. Some places try to stop it; others try to suggest that baby-feeding is best done in the toilets.
	It beats me that so many people can ogle pictures of women's breasts in newspapers and magazines on open public display, yet complain about that most natural of sights—a mother breastfeeding her baby. Nevertheless, that is what happens. In 2003, a survey for midwives, nurses and health visitors found that nearly four out of 10 breastfeeding mothers and two out of 10 bottle-feeding mothers experienced problems in finding convenient places to feed their babies when out and about.
	I am grateful to the NCT for some examples from its casebook. In a Birmingham restaurant, a GP who was discreetly feeding her baby at a table was asked to stop or go to the toilet. A patient in a GP's surgery was asked to leave the waiting room even though another mother was feeding a baby with a bottle. A woman at an ideal homes exhibition was reduced to tears when a man released a volley of abuse, picked up and threw away her pushchair and snatched the cushion against which she was leaning, all because she was breastfeeding at the exhibition. A newspaper recently reported that a doctor was told not to breastfeed in a Derby store because it was a gentleman's outfitters. Stevenage citizens advice bureau reports a case of a nursing mother threatened with homelessness who was told that she could not bring her child with her to the court hearing at Hitchin.
	In aiming to outlaw such discrimination, the Bill does not discriminate between breastfeeding and bottle-feeding—it applies to and gives the same protection in each case. It applies to all children under the age of two.
	The proposals are not new. For years, UNICEF has called for legislation to protect breastfeeding mothers who want to feed their babies in public areas. UNICEF does not simply wait for Parliament to act—it has developed a United Kingdom baby-friendly initiative as part of a global programme with the World Health Organisation. The initiative works with health services to improve practice in supporting breastfeeding. We should give such steps legal backing to encourage breastfeeding. The Bill would do that.
	I have said that the idea is not new. Elaine Smith, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, successfully steered a similar law on to the statute book north of the border last year. Earlier this year, I was present at a meeting of the all-party group on maternity services when a Health Minister was asked to introduce a similar law in England and Wales. A similar request was made of another Health Minister at a meeting in my constituency in Stafford, again, earlier this year. The NCT supports the proposal. I therefore have support from UNICEF, the all-party group and the NCT. Scotland has already enacted such a law and the policy is fully in line with the policies of the World Health Organisation and our Government.
	I leave the last word to Angela Blanchard, an NCT breastfeeding counsellor in my constituency. She said:
	"In my 10 years of being a breastfeeding counsellor for NCT, the issue of breastfeeding in public places has come up in every single ante-natal session that I have facilitated—both for NCT and the NHS. Mothers-to-be say things like, 'I'd like to breastfeed but what about when I go out in public?' There is a great amount of fear and anxiety around this. Legal protection would be hugely empowering."
	I beg to ask leave to introduce such legal protection.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Annette Brooke, Mrs. Janet Dean, Paul Farrelly, Sandra Gidley, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Brian Iddon, Laura Moffatt, Julie Morgan, Mrs. Betty Williams and Mr. David Kidney.

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I shall make headway.
	Longer-term analysis by the Electoral Commission suggests that there is a disfranchised generation that, as it gets older, will not turn out in greater numbers. We hear little as to what the Government propose to do about that. Increasing political awareness and interest must surely be at the heart of any attempt to increase turnout. If that issue is not tackled in conjunction with the Bill, increasing duties on electoral registration officers will, we agree, have little effect.
	The commission raised particular concerns about the existing registration system, under which the head of household is much more likely to be registered than other eligible people in the home. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will deal with point that later. We believe that individual registration is very much tied in with amendment No. 14, which is why I have taken some time to put the two together.
	Clause 9, which will insert proposed new section 9A in the Representation of the People Act 1983, sets out a non-exhaustive list of the minimum steps that must be taken by the electoral registration officers to identify persons eligible for registration as electors—for example, making repeat house-to-house inquiries in connection with the annual canvas.
	We support that clause and believe that there should be clear duties on registration officers to promote accurate registration. Nevertheless, the clause could go further in promoting not only registration, but an accurate register. We must recognise that over-registration and under-registration are both problems that need addressing.
	We must all be clear about the fact that an accurate register that results in fewer people being registered is preferable, from our point of view, to a bloated, inaccurate register. If the registration system is secure and accurate, the risks further downstream in the electoral process are significantly reduced.

Clive Betts: Perhaps, and if this House does not require that a league table be drawn up, someone doubtless soon will; perhaps my hon. Friend will have another job to do in that regard. Local council committees can scrutinise such reports annually, and it might not be a bad idea for the commission—should it be given this responsibility—to produce an annual report for Parliament, so that we can scrutinise how well it has performed overall.
	On safeguards and scrutiny, our Select Committee hearing examined the idea of using of a variety of databases. In general, data protection experts had no problem with that, so long as it is made clear that the information collected can be used for this purpose.
	I am certainly prepared to listen to what my colleagues on the Government Front Bench have to say. The wording of my amendment may not be perfect, but I hope that they at least accept the thrust of the idea that we should make it clear that EROs have the right to access not merely information held by a council—it is clear that they already access council tax and benefits information, for example—but wider information. Let us consider a classic case. Local authorities used to have housing departments, whose information could be used by EROs. Housing departments as we traditionally understand them no longer exist, because stock transfers have taken place or arm's length management organisations have been created, as in the case of my Sheffield authority. It is not clear whether EROs have the right to seek information outside the council from arm's length, or completely separate and independent, bodies. It would clearly be wrong if the information historically used by EROs were suddenly removed as the result of a housing stock transfer.

Andrew Love: I rise primarily to endorse the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), but before I do so I shall briefly comment on amendment No. 14 in the context of the way that it was moved: it was suggested that its rationale was that ensuring the register's security and accuracy should be given priority above all other considerations. Other hon. Members have spoken about the need for balance. I want to go further by saying quite clearly that what we have in this country is a crisis of under-registration. Over-registration may or may not exist—there are one or two constituencies where more than 100 per cent. of the estimated local electorate appear on the electoral register—but although I recognise that a balance and proper security measures are needed, we need to address the significant problem of under-registration.
	The fact that somewhere between 3.5 million to 4 million people—about 9 to 10 per cent. of the population—are missing nationally from the registers has been mentioned already. In parts of the capital, particularly in inner London, the figure rises to somewhere in the region of 20 per cent. of the population. Although I accept some of the previous suggestions that perhaps we do not need an annual rolling register, there are certain parts of the country where it may well be necessary to keep such a register to achieve accuracy, and London is an example.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman will find that other measures give electoral registration officers the powers and resources with which they can try to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of their right to register for, and participate in, elections. A line must be drawn when an attempt to encourage people to register and participate shaves into political considerations. However, the Bill does a good job by drawing the line in the right place.
	I did not want to comment on amendment No. 14 in any great detail. I hope that the Minister will treat it in the way in which the Opposition intended. We should remind electoral registration officers of their duty to ensure that they maintain an accurate register and I hope that that duty will be encapsulated in the final version of clause 9. However, that duty is not the essence of what the clause is about.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe go to the heart of the concerns that many hon. Members have expressed. Clause 9 simply requires registration officers to maintain the register. We must, of course, ensure that the register is accurate and that people who wish to be placed on it may do so, but a greater sense of urgency and priority is needed, so we should encourage officers to maximise the numbers on the register, which would be the effect of amendment No. 30. Although the wording of that amendment might not be acceptable to the Minister, I hope that she will take on board the sprit in which it was tabled and the support that I suspect it would receive among hon. Members.
	I am pleased that amendments Nos. 28 and 29 have been tabled because the question of data sharing goes to the heart of what we can do to try to maximise the number of people on the register. I have talked to my electoral registration officer at great length about what can be achieved by knocking on doors and sending letters. It is extremely difficult to boost the number of people on the register by using simply those mechanisms. We need information from data sources so that we can target the people who are not on the register more effectively. I accept that there might be data protection problems with that. Additionally, we should not set up a mechanism that would overload electoral registration officers because they can do only a certain amount of work with the limited resources available to them.

Question put, That the clausebe read a Second time:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 217, Noes 288.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: people in HMOs are poor at registering to vote. Why is that? It may be because one person is being sent the form for the whole household—the reality being that a group of people share the flat—and that that person simply cannot be bothered to fill the form in for the others. I believe that a more individual approach, targeting each person in turn, is more likely to succeed than the current failed approach, which the hon. Gentleman seems to want to continue with. He admits that registration has gone down in that ward by 30 per cent. in recent years and he invites us to build on that success. Surely we should look at why the system has failed so badly?
	I am all in favour of data matching, and think that it is a good idea. I want us to be proactive in this matter, because a register must be accurate in two ways: it should not contain names that should not appear; and it should contain names that should.
	We need to get beyond the use of names such as Hootie McBoob and Gus Troobev—the latter is an anagram of "bogus voter"—on voter registration forms. That still happens, but the Electoral Commission has taken a constructive approach. Instead of insisting on full individual voter registration now, it proposes that we try to tackle the problem of postal voting fraud. In its evidence to the Select Committee, it suggested a very modest approach. It said:
	"The transitional arrangement we discussed with the Select Committee would give people the option to provide their signature and date of birth on a voluntary basis when responding to the annual canvass. But it would be mandatory for those wishing to vote by post or proxy".
	That transitional approach is a very modest proposal, compared with what the Electoral Commission asked for originally, but it is not the potty piloting proposed in the Bill. Piloting individual voter registration or personal identifiers in one district council will tell us nothing. After all, it could be said that a successful pilot scheme has taken place already in Northern Ireland, which is a whole country.
	Regardless of party allegiance, many hon. Members will not be satisfied unless action is taken on individual voter registration and personal identifiers. Therefore, I hope that the Minister agrees that the time has come for some movement on this important issue.

Andrew Love: Amendment No. 18 mentions the need to supply a national insurance number, but it would also require from an applicant
	"a statement of whether or not he has been resident in the United Kingdom for . . . the three-month period . . . and . . . any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is . . . registered".
	The rationale for that appears to be that it reflects the provision in Northern Ireland. Is that are reasonable rationale or would it erect additional barriers to registration?

Barbara Keeley: I am sure that the Opposition would. I do not speak as someone who has a problem in her constituency. Worsley has between 92 and 94 per cent. registration, but my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies with more inner-city wards find after the annual canvas that the ERO is fighting to pull up registration from 64 per cent.

David Cairns: We have had an extremely useful and enlightening debate. It has been our first canter around issues regarding individual registration, the forms for such registration and the nature of piloting, with which I will deal in a moment. First, however, I want to respond to several specific points made during the debate.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that we need a campaign to increase the numbers on the register. The entire purpose of the two-and-a-half-hour debate that we had earlier was to set out the basic parameters of that campaign. At a later stage, we will talk about the performance standards to which we will expect electoral registration officers to perform. We are thus in agreement about the need for such a campaign, and I welcomed the commitment that he gave.
	The hon. Gentleman said that everyone who has studied the matter has concluded that individual registration will improve security without having an impact on numbers on the register. However, not everyone agrees with that. Several hon. Members who spoke, the EROs who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), and my electoral registration officer, Mr. Edward Duffy from Renfrewshire valuation joint board, certainly do not agree. Mr. Duffy wrote me a letter last week that said:
	"Of course having identified residents, there still remains the problem of trying to persuade them to complete and return the canvass form. This is likely to become more of a problem with the requirement to collect signatures and dates of birth."
	That view of an experienced registration officer is echoed by registration officers throughout the country. It is not just Labour Members who are saying that collecting information from people on individual or household forms might impact negatively on the register. That is why we propose to follow the route of piloting, which we will discuss in more detail during our consideration of the next set of amendments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) raised the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by Scope, Sense, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and other bodies about the design of any such form. The Department has not produced any mock-up forms, so I am not sure of the provenance of the forms to which she refers. We will not create any such mock-up forms or proceed on the matter without consulting the organisations to which she rightly drew attention. We give a firm commitment that if the process moves forward—the Bill allows for individual identifiers—we will consult those organisations and others with a vested interest in ensuring that we get the design of the forms right. My hon. Friend also said that several of those organisations have reservations about the requirement on national insurance numbers that is proposed in amendment No. 18, for reasons of complexity.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly said that there was a need to take action on fraud. He also acknowledged, graciously, that we are taking such action. The new fraud offences regarding both registration and applications for a postal vote have tough sanctions. We are not sanguine about fraud—there will be zero tolerance of it, as it has been said—and we are proceeding with tough new measures.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the requirement to give a signature and date of birth was not a difficult barrier, but that is a point of contention. My electoral registration officer thinks that it could well be a barrier, as do the registration officers of the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley. There is no consensus that the measure would not have the undesired consequence of increasing what have been described as the catastrophic drops on the register.
	The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for North-East Hertfordshire talked about the so-called transitional arrangement proposals put forward by Sam Younger. We must remember that Mr. Younger was setting out a fallback position, in a sense, because he does not want the pilots. We are thus effectively having this discussion the wrong way round because we should talk about the pilots first.
	I have read the letter that Mr. Younger sent to my right hon., learned and noble Friend the Secretary of State, which I noticed was faxed to him at 6 pm on Friday evening. The letter makes serious suggestions, so the proposal clearly must be studied with a view to its possible ramifications. A prima facie reading of the letter leads me to ask two questions about the proposal. If it will be voluntary to provide such information on the form, will that provide the increased security that people want? Secondly, would it not add to the confusion surrounding the forms if there was a space for people to provide their dates of birth and signatures, but they did not have to fill them in if they did not want to? People would say, "If I don't fill this in, will I be somehow worse off than if I do?" We could explain to them that they would not be worse off because it would be voluntary to provide the information, but that would add to the confusion about which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley spoke when she cited the MORI polls. People find such forms confusing enough as it is, without adding another layer of possible confusion. However, I have made only a prima facie reading of the proposal. We will give it greater study, but I am not immediately attracted to it.

David Cairns: I apologise if I inadvertently mischaracterised the hon. Gentleman's argument. If anything, however, his intervention adds to the lack of consensus rather than clarifies the position.
	As has been said, the Electoral Commission found that up to 3.5 million people in England and Wales and an unknown number in Scotland cannot vote in elections because they are not registered. Individual registration and the use of national insurance numbers could make that situation worse. There has been disagreement about the position in Northern Ireland, but when individual registration was introduced there, registration levels dropped. In one Belfast ward, registration dropped from an already low 41 per cent. to just 23 per cent. Some hon. Members argued that registration levels were 150 per cent. across the Province and dropped to 90 per cent., but that Belfast ward, albeit an extreme example, shows that there was a catastrophic drop from an already low starting base. However, individual registration has benefits for the security of postal voting, particularly through the collection of personal identifiers such as a signature and date of birth. We have therefore provided in the Bill for the collection of personal identifiers, but to test and evaluate their impact on registration levels we intend to proceed through a programme of pilots that we shall discuss in relation to a later group of amendments. Proceeding in that way will ensure that our approach is evidence-based and will prevent us from introducing policies that serve one leg of the stool to the detriment of another.
	Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 seek to extend the full Northern Ireland individual registration system to Great Britain, including inter alia the use of national insurance numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) drew the attention of the Committee to the Northern Ireland provision for three-month residency. That provision was introduced because it was feared that once an election was announced, residents of the Republic of Ireland might cross the border and register in constituencies in the north. Because Northern Ireland citizens can vote in UK elections they could then take part in such elections. There is probably consensus that that is unlikely to happen.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is shrugging his shoulders, but it would be far-fetched to believe that there were hordes of people in the Republic of Ireland waiting to come over here so that they can take part in our elections. That scenario, however, is dealt with in the amendment.
	A controversial provision in amendment No. 18 deals with national insurance numbers. In Northern Ireland, national insurance numbers are used to share data with the Department for Work and Pensions. That process allows external confirmation of a person's identity and is useful in relation to security. It is possible, however, because Northern Ireland is relatively small—1.1 million electors—and has a centrally held register.
	By contrast, Great Britain has around 43 million electors and more than 400 locally held registers. The infrastructure is therefore simply not in place for the Northern Ireland-style use of national insurance numbers to be extended to Great Britain at this time. In that context, we believe that the collection of national insurance numbers would add nothing to security and simply deter people from registering to vote. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has pointed out, many people do not know their national insurance number, and we believe that they would not take the extra step of discovering it in order to register.
	When we have the co-ordinated online record of electors, which we will discuss later in Committee, we could use a national insurance system in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland. The Bill allows for such a system to be added both in pilots and at roll-out at a later date via an affirmative order, and the provision is included in clause 14.
	In short, amendments Nos. 18 and 20 would introduce a policy which, although it is not currently appropriate, could be of use in the future. However, since the Bill already provides for that possibility, and since the time is not right for its implementation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath: We move on to the vexed question of pilots, which the Government have given rather a bad name. Pilots are the Government-speak equivalent of manana: if one does not want to do something quickly, one runs pilots, pilots and more pilots, after which one can assess the pilots for a while, review the assessment and then run more pilots. However, the alternative is to roll out the whole scheme within a few weeks of installing the pilot scheme without any assessment of the evidence. Those are not appropriate ways of dealing with what many commentators have described as a matter of some urgency, particularly in the case of postal votes.
	I have already conceded the point that individual registration raises some issues, and we must examine the matter carefully. My preference is for an individual voter registration scheme, which is a view echoed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who sees that as the direction in which we should be going, but also recognises the practical difficulties along the way.
	I have given the Government credit for introducing new offences in the Bill in order to tighten up on fraud. If we are to make those offences bite, however, other than making threats that are never brought to court, we must provide the means by which returning officers and registration officers can detect fraud, otherwise we are simply rattling sabres without any expectation of success. That is particularly the case in terms of postal voting fraud, which we know has occurred because there have been successful court cases. We heard quoted on Second Reading what the learned judge in one such case said about the inadequacy of the current systems. If we accept the Government's proposed pilot scheme, we will not have these precautions in place by the time of the next general election. If that happens, we should hang our heads in shame, because this House will have failed in its primary duty of ensuring the integrity of our electoral system. We need an alternative to the Government's proposals.
	When he was responding to the previous group of amendments, the Minister suggested—although he recanted when I intervened on him—that I had said that a full system of individual registration and personal identifiers should be rolled out across the country at a single stroke. I have not said that. I have said that the Government's scheme, which they have identified as being appropriate in the pilot areas, is appropriate across the country because it is a minimal scheme with very little likelihood of having a significant effect. If it were to have a significant effect, we have a fall-back position, which has already been described by the Electoral Commission.
	The Government were wrong to suggest pilots in the first instance. People in the Whitehall Departments should be taken away and given some elementary scientific training as to how to conduct a controlled experiment. Too often, we have pilots that tell us practically nothing, and this is a case in point. The Government propose that local authorities opt in by offering the opportunity to run pilots in their local authority area. That gives us a self-selecting group of local authorities, no control over the kinds of authorities that are being used because they are self-selecting, and, with no control authority, no ability to make proper comparisons of what is happening. What is observed in the experimental conditions might be entirely random instead of helpful in ascertaining any sort of trend.
	If the Government are insistent about going ahead with pilots, the very least that we can expect is that they identify a region and run the registration experiment across it. That would mean, first, that they have a suitable size of response in order to get meaningful results; secondly, that they can compare one region with a similar region, thereby providing the control that I suggest; and thirdly, that they have sufficient data to recommend changes in the future. None of that is accomplished by the Government's proposed pilot scheme.
	There is a better solution. The Government do not propose to go as far as the Northern Ireland experiment because—I agree with them on this—they want not to use the Northern Ireland system of personal identifiers, which includes the national insurance number, but a basic version based on a signature and date of birth. That is not such a drastic step as suggesting a catastrophic reduction in registration but it is the minimum required to maintain the integrity of the voting system, especially for postal votes. Amendment No. 4 would set aside the concept of the pilot and go for a change in the law to provide basic protection.
	Later amendments propose an alternative sort of pilot, which would be based on a larger area—an electoral region. Of course, we held such a pilot for the European parliamentary elections because that was believed to be appropriate. It was not based on one region—we had to go much further and half of England was used for the experiment because the Department took a completely different view of what was appropriate then. We had the Dane law, which covered an experimental area rather than a few local authorities dotted around the country.
	Let me consider the so-called transitional arrangement that the Electoral Commission proposed. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) is not in her place, because she so strongly advocated never disagreeing with the Electoral Commission's proposals. She suggested that it would be outrageous to disagree with them and I should therefore have liked her to be here to endorse my comments. The Electoral Commission has made it clear that it does not agree with the Government about the piloting approach. I have a letter from Sam Younger that outlines the Electoral Commission's reasons for that. I received the letter at 6.15—the Minister obviously received it first, which is right and proper.
	The Electoral Commission has proposed a transitional approach. It does not give me everything that I want—it is a compromise—but its great merit is that it does two things. It enables the Government to behave cautiously, as they say they want to do on the introduction of the overall arrangements and towards the normal voting procedure, but it ensures that minimum standards for postal votes are in place long before the next general election. That meets the Government's objection to my position and my objection to theirs. That is a strong place to start. The Under-Secretary shakes his head. He obviously has a preconceived view that he will not find the approach acceptable. That is a shame because, on Report, it might form the basis on which we wish to proceed. If we cannot do that, the measure will, unfortunately, go to a non-elected House for arbitration.

Mark Harper: To pick up the point about pilots, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that we seem already to have had a pilot of sorts in Northern Ireland, from which we learnt some things. We should pay attention to the Electoral Commission, which recognised that there were some negative effects on registration, and advised that to tackle that we should couple a move to individual registration with other measures such as campaigning and publicity work.
	I am not sure how far forward the running of pilots will take us. One of two things will happen. The use of basic identifiers such as a signature and date of birth will not show a significant a drop, which I am not convinced will satisfy some Labour Members—who have already seen examples of a drop in Northern Ireland—that there will not be a problem in rolling that out across the country. Alternatively, it will show a significant drop, but the reasons for that, and the reasons why there are such barriers, will not necessarily be clear.
	In relation to the reasons why people do not register, the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) stated in its report on page 26:
	"Most of the figures quoted are from data collected in 1991."
	It mentioned that the Government were conducting
	."
	Will the Minister tell the Committee what progress has been made on that, and whether that information will be available? Clearly, if some of what seem to be relatively straightforward identifiers act as significant barriers, we need to know why they are acting as barriers. I do not see how we can get much more straightforward identifiers than signature and date of birth for most people. If the introduction of such identifiers causes a massive drop in registration, I am not sure what other sorts of identifiers would not have a similar effect. We therefore need to be clear about why a drop in registration has been caused.
	If a signature and date of birth is that off-putting, that either reflects levels of education among some of the groups who are not registering to vote, or, as I have said previously, the extent to which they could care less about voting. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that for some individuals a signature might be a problem, and the Bill provides for that, but if most people are so disinterested in voting that asking them to sign a piece of paper and give their date of birth will cause a catastrophic drop in registration—as some Labour Members were saying—it strikes me that we have a more serious problem with voting and democracy in this country than is recognised.
	If the Minister could answer my key question about some of the research on barriers to voting, that would be helpful.

Mark Harper: If voluntary pilot schemes are to rely on local authorities coming forward, how can we ensure that such schemes are piloted in regions where there are significant numbers of people who are not registered? In order to tackle some of the issues that we have discussed today, we need to pilot areas where significant numbers are not registered. Moreover, if we discover that there are barriers and a drop in registration occurs, what are we going to do find out why?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman again attempts to clarify what he said, but the fact remains that, following that election, we had the biggest crisis of confidence in the electoral system of this country that we have ever seen. For the first time, we had people genuinely doubting whether the election in which they had just taken part was conducted freely and fairly. We should not tolerate that. What is the Government's response? Are they prepared to go into the next general election with the same postal voting precautions in place? Yes, they are. Their answer is, "We'll do something, but manana—tomorrow, whatever." That is not a satisfactory position. We need to do something urgently. The Electoral Commission has given us a clear steer about how we should go forward and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Barbara Keeley: I disagree most profoundly. As I said earlier, I have experience of a number of successful all- postal pilot schemes. We had great success with them in Trafford and in Salford. Piloting is important because we are changing a system that people have used all their lives. If they are middle aged or older, they may have been voting in a certain way for a number of years. It takes a fair amount of work to make pilot schemes successful. I agree that some local authorities did not get together and work hard enough to make them a success, but some of them have been successful. The reason why the Government keep supporting pilots schemes is that we are changing the way that people vote. That is a profound change for a lot of people, and we need to try out different ways of doing it.

'In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), in rule 8(3) (candidate's consent to nomination), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(c) shall state that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as that for the election to which the consent relates,".'.—[Sir Patrick Cormack.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Bill (Clauses 9 to 18 and new clauses 2 and 3) reported, as amended; to lie upon the table.

James Arbuthnot: I wish to present a petition collected by Mrs Janet Kelly of Whitehill in my constituency. It is part of the IsItFair council tax protest campaign.
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the IsItFair council tax protest campaign declares:
	That the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay: further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the table.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the important issue of senior citizens and poverty in north Belfast.
	My constituency has one of the highest numbers of senior citizens in Northern Ireland. Levels of long-term illness, disability and poverty are also among the highest in Northern Ireland constituencies. The problems of poverty and deprivation that afflict senior citizens and pensioners in my area are common to senior citizens throughout Northern Ireland, but they are, if anything, felt more acutely in my constituency. I therefore urge the Minister to bring some hope of relief to a significant section of the community which has made an enormous contribution to our society. It has brought us through some dark, difficult and challenging days in our history. Even today it contributes massively to the richness of our community, especially in north Belfast.
	The Government will say that people over 75 benefit from free television licences, winter fuel payments, home security measures, free prescriptions and so forth. In Northern Ireland, pensioners can also avail themselves of free public transport—courtesy of Democratic Unionist party Ministers in the old devolved Assembly. No doubt the Government will also say that older people are identified as a priority under the Promoting Social Inclusion initiative, among other measures. It appears to me, however, that in north Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland there is no joined-up approach in Government or among statutory bodies and funders, to tackling issues of concern to senior citizens.
	Let me give an example. The north Belfast senior citizens forum does enormously good work under the sterling leadership of its chairperson Meg Holmes. It is an umbrella organisation formed from some 30 older people's groups in north Belfast which are dedicated to promoting the welfare of older people and contributing to the relief of poverty, sickness and disability among senior citizens on both sides of the community—for the forum is a truly cross-community organisation. It gives older people a voice through lobbying and advocacy, but also gives them practical help through an outreach advice service—a handy persons scheme. It is a valuable source of information. It has been instrumental in raising concern about the safety and wellbeing of older citizens, and has played a leading role as a founder member of the north Belfast older people's community safety partnership.
	The forum is part of a thriving voluntary and community senior citizens sector in Northern Ireland. Age Concern Northern Ireland and Help the Aged (Northern Ireland) are the best-known organisations of this kind, but consortiums of older people's organisations such as the north Belfast senior citizens forum and the Northern Ireland pensioners convention are working hard in their local areas. However, the forum and other groups now face a funding crisis. I recently brought together a number of statutory organisations and funders to meet the forum. I urge the Minister to become involved not only in helping the forum but in bringing together statutory bodies, Departments and funders in a joined-up approach to the financing and resourcing of such groups, so that there is a coherent strategy in all parts of the Province.
	I was told at the meeting that a group in the Newry area was receiving substantial funding—up to £100,000—from the local health trust. Yet the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust is not giving anywhere near such help and resources to the group in my area. Indeed, in other parts of the Province no help whatsoever has been given, so there is clearly an inconsistent approach. There needs to be more joined-up thinking and a much more coherent approach to funding these groups, which are doing sterling work in their local areas.
	Many of my older constituents suffer from long-standing illnesses. Research indicates that in Northern Ireland, 19 per cent. of people aged over 50 have mobility problems, compared with 10 per cent. of the population as a whole. Some 64 per cent. of people aged 65 or over have long-standing illnesses or disability. The fact that 6 per cent. of those aged over 75 still live, in this day and age, in unfit dwellings is part of the problem. Many older people in particular still live in inadequate housing that is not suitable for their needs. Service providers must address the provision of advice and information, and the links between housing, health care and support.
	One issue that constituents frequently raise with me in my advice surgeries is what will happen to them when they fall ill in their old age, and what services they will be able to avail themselves of in Belfast, North—a point that applies across the board. They are concerned about how they will provide for themselves and how they will be cared for. People with dementia and their carers comprise an especially marginalised group of mostly older people.
	A major issue affecting the quality of older people's lives is long-term care. The royal commission dealing with this subject recommended that both nursing and personal care should be free, based on an assessment of need. Indeed, during the lifetime of the old Assembly, a number of colleagues and I had the pleasure of presenting a motion to that Assembly, urging the introduction of free nursing and personal care in Northern Ireland. It was adopted unanimously.
	In a written parliamentary reply to me in July of this year, the Minister with responsibility for health matters in Northern Ireland said that he had asked officials to update the interdepartmental group's report on personal care, which had been submitted to the Northern Ireland Executive on 8 August 2002. I urge the Government to make progress in this area. People are looking for a response, and it will not be good enough for the Government to adopt the line that they will await making a decision until the possible restoration of the Assembly. They do not adopt the same attitude when it comes to pressing ahead in other areas, notably the education sector. We are looking for answers.
	Recent announcements by the Government have increased concern among my constituents that the level of poverty among pensioners will increase. We in Northern Ireland are familiar enough with the problems of fuel poverty. Tragically, many pensioners have had to make a choice between heating and eating. But we now have the real prospect of tens of thousands of people, many of them pensioners, being plunged into water poverty.
	I accept that Northern Ireland's water service requires substantial sustained investment in its infrastructure. However, underfunding by successive Governments in the past 30 years has deprived it of the investment that is needed to replace and update much of a system that has served Northern Ireland for more than a century. The Government have determined that the only solution is to make the water service self-funding by charging consumers for the service provided. It is clear to me and to many in Northern Ireland that the introduction of water charges fulfils a key objective of this Government: to increase significantly the level of local taxation paid by households in Northern Ireland.
	I do not wish to get into a general debate on water charges this evening, except to say that the argument that Northern Ireland needs to be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in that regard would carry more weight if the same argument were applied across the board. It does not take into account the fact that Northern Ireland average household income levels are some 19 per cent. lower than in the rest of the UK, or that almost a quarter of those aged 60 or older in Northern Ireland are in receipt of income support compared to 13.5 per cent. in England and Wales. It does not take into account the fact that household essentials, such as energy and fuel, are much more expensive.
	The proposed water charges, coupled with massive rises in the regional rate, with which I shall deal in a few moments, will place an extremely heavy burden—an intolerable burden, in my view—on older people. It will worsen the position for pensioner households that are already in poverty and it will add to the numbers of households and people in poverty overall.
	The Government state that they are committed to eliminating pensioner poverty, but it seems to me to be totally at variance with that objective for them to impose what I regard as such a regressive tax. The age sector reference group in Northern Ireland highlighted the lack of proper consultation with older people or of proper analysis of the consequences of the introduction of water charges, especially for older people.
	The original proposal for a 25 per cent. discount for those in receipt of housing benefit rent rebate was totally inadequate. I welcome the fact that the Government have delayed the introduction of water charges, but they must radically reassess the position. The report of Paddy Hillyard and Fiona Scullion of Queen's university demonstrated that the highest risk of water poverty will be experienced by pensioner households. It also concluded that the scheme will have an adverse effect on the poorest sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Those are reasons enough to make the Government reassess their whole approach to this matter.
	Senior citizens in my constituency have spoken to me not just with anxiety, but with real fear about what the future holds for them, when they are faced with the prospect of having to make water charge payments as well as paying higher fuel prices, higher rates bills and having to survive on an inadequate pension.
	I mentioned fuel poverty earlier. It is defined as a spend of more than 10 per cent. of income, excluding housing costs, on heating, lighting and various appliance uses. The Department for Social Development has estimated that 170,000 households are at risk of fuel poverty. Given that the income of a pensioner household is estimated to be only a third of that of households that are in work, fuel poverty clearly affects older people badly. Figures indicate that 50 per cent. of fuel-poor households are aged 60 or more and 22 per cent. aged 75 or more.
	The rate of excess winter deaths among people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland is totally unacceptable. Despite the various energy efficiency schemes and the introduction of winter fuel payments, 1,300 older people died from cold-related illnesses in 2002, accounting for over two thirds of all winter deaths. Those deaths could and should have been avoided. It is, quite frankly, a scandal that in this day and age we should be talking about figures like that. There must be proper resourcing and targets to eliminate fuel poverty.
	I welcome the launch of the fuel poverty strategy for Northern Ireland and I welcome the warm homes scheme, which was introduced when Democratic Unionist party Ministers were in office in the old Assembly, but it needs to be extended and more resources need to be put into it. I recognise the fact that the Minister has taken a personal interest in this issue, but more needs to be done, particularly in respect of more resources. The scheme should not be restricted to older people who are in receipt of qualifying benefits such as pension credit, since many do not claim it, even though they are entitled to it.
	The decision to increase the regional rate by 19 per cent. represents a double whammy for people in Northern Ireland, but particularly for our senior citizens. Looming on the horizon is the reform of the domestic rating system, and there is much concern about the impact that that will have on older and vulnerable people.
	No one is under any illusion about the great difficulties involved in reforming the current rate system, but there are real concerns about the suggestion that the capital value of a person's home is broadly linked to that householder's economic resources. Groups working with older people in my constituency point out that a large proportion of them live in properties that they bought 30 or 40 years ago. Although the value of properties may have rocketed thanks to their location and the natural rise in house prices, it is not right to assume that their owners have a lot of disposable income as a result. One pensioner in four lives in poverty, and 74 per cent. of older people between 60 and 74 years of age live in privately owned homes. The reform of the domestic rating system will have an enormous impact on them.
	I accept that housing benefit is one way to alleviate the difficulties experienced by people in paying their rates bill. However, many people do not apply for it, either because they are not aware that they are entitled to it or because they are put off by the complex administration procedure and the stigma attached to means-testing.
	Means-testing remains a major problem. For example, it is estimated that tens of thousands of eligible pensioners do not receive pension credit. Older people find means-testing demeaning, stigmatising and intrusive, and believe that it is complex, bureaucratic and inaccessible. We will not tackle the problem of pensioner poverty in north Belfast or Northern Ireland—or anywhere in the country—until we accept that means-testing benefits is not the way to proceed. Alternatives to means-testing must be found but, in the meantime, targets must be set to ensure the full take-up of benefits and reliefs.
	I note that the reform of the council tax system in England has been put on hold, but I wonder why the Government are in such a pressing rush to go ahead with the reform of the rates system in Northern Ireland, given that it will have the effects—especially on senior citizens—that I have already outlined.
	The overriding issue for older people in my constituency and throughout Northern Ireland is the need for a decent pension that lifts them out of poverty. Average pensioner income in Northern Ireland is 10 per cent. lower than in the UK as a whole. In 2002–03, gross income for pensioner couples in Northern Ireland was £346 a month, compared with £387 for the UK as a whole. In the same year, one fifth of pensioners in Northern Ireland had incomes below the most commonly used poverty threshold. Means-testing the benefits that make up the difference is not working for pensioners in my constituency and across Northern Ireland. More needs to be done to tackle that problem.
	I conclude by drawing particular attention to the position of women in relation to pensions. Recently, a lady visited my advice centre who had worked for a considerable period of her life but who was facing the prospect of real poverty in her retirement because she had not accumulated enough pension benefits when she was in work. That problem needs to be tackled. Women remain more likely to be in part-time work, or to stay outside the work force altogether. The problem is exacerbated in Northern Ireland because female participation in the work force is lower than in the rest of the UK.
	Given that, on average, women's earnings remain substantially lower than men's, the Government risk condemning generations of women to an old age of poverty. There needs to be a change in pensions policy, so that the future for older women is secured. The Turner commission is due to report soon, and we need to tackle the problem that I have described as part of that debate.
	North Belfast has many older residents and the Minister will know the deprivation there from his visits to the area and the work that he has done. My constituency contains wards and areas that are among the most deprived in Northern Ireland and in the country as a whole. It is essential that the problems that I have set out are tackled and I look forward to his response.